Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails
Date: 2021-03-05 04:10:45
Message-ID: 1437804.1614917445@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I'd be kind of inclined to remove this test script altogether, on the
> grounds that it's wasting cycles on a function that doesn't really
> do what is claimed (and we should remove the documentation claim, too).

Alternatively, maybe we can salvage the function's usefulness by making it
flush WAL before returning?

If we go that route, then we have the opposite problem with respect
to the test script: rather than trying to make it paper over the
function's problems, we ought to try to make it reliably fail with
the code as it stands.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-03-05 04:13:04 Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails
Previous Message kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com 2021-03-05 04:10:19 RE: [PATCH] pgbench: improve \sleep meta command